[Here is what I wrote on Thelockerbietrial.com website on this date in 2002 about the state of play at the close of week three of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s first appeal:]
In the course of Friday morning [8 February 2002] the Court decided that it was prepared to hear the new evidence proposed by the defence from security personnel on duty at Heathrow's Terminal 3 during the night before the departure of Pan Am 103, regarding a break-in in the luggage marshalling area. Mr Alan Turnbull QC for the Crown had argued strongly that the proposed new evidence was not of sufficient "significance" to warrant the Court's hearing it. By their decision the appeal judges indicated that they were of the view that the evidence in question could have the necessary "significance." The Crown indicated that if this evidence was permitted, they would themselves wish to lead evidence on the issue from up to eleven witnesses. The Court suggested that discussions should take place between the Crown and the defence regarding these eleven potential Crown witnesses, with a view to ascertaining whether the attendance of all was really necessary. It is likely that the Court will begin hearing the new evidence on Wednesday 13 February.
During the week it has been abundantly clear that the appeal judges have absorbed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant Megrahi and appreciate the force of a number of the criticisms made in them of the reasoning in the written opinion of the trial Court. Their Lordships have not been slow to draw their concerns to the attention of the Advocate-Depute. In particular, Lord Osborne and Lord Kirkwood have asked some very pointed questions indeed and have subjected Advocate-Depute Turnbull and Advocate-Depute Campbell to rigorous cross-examination regarding the Crown's stance in supporting the trial Court's conclusions on certain crucial matters, such as the finding that the bomb was ingested at Luqa Airport in Malta; that Megrahi was the person who purchased the clothes from Mary's House in Sliema; and that the date of purchase was 7 December 1988.
In the course of Friday morning [8 February 2002] the Court decided that it was prepared to hear the new evidence proposed by the defence from security personnel on duty at Heathrow's Terminal 3 during the night before the departure of Pan Am 103, regarding a break-in in the luggage marshalling area. Mr Alan Turnbull QC for the Crown had argued strongly that the proposed new evidence was not of sufficient "significance" to warrant the Court's hearing it. By their decision the appeal judges indicated that they were of the view that the evidence in question could have the necessary "significance." The Crown indicated that if this evidence was permitted, they would themselves wish to lead evidence on the issue from up to eleven witnesses. The Court suggested that discussions should take place between the Crown and the defence regarding these eleven potential Crown witnesses, with a view to ascertaining whether the attendance of all was really necessary. It is likely that the Court will begin hearing the new evidence on Wednesday 13 February.
During the week it has been abundantly clear that the appeal judges have absorbed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant Megrahi and appreciate the force of a number of the criticisms made in them of the reasoning in the written opinion of the trial Court. Their Lordships have not been slow to draw their concerns to the attention of the Advocate-Depute. In particular, Lord Osborne and Lord Kirkwood have asked some very pointed questions indeed and have subjected Advocate-Depute Turnbull and Advocate-Depute Campbell to rigorous cross-examination regarding the Crown's stance in supporting the trial Court's conclusions on certain crucial matters, such as the finding that the bomb was ingested at Luqa Airport in Malta; that Megrahi was the person who purchased the clothes from Mary's House in Sliema; and that the date of purchase was 7 December 1988.